Re: [ltans] Harber and Stornetta expiry

Peter Sylvester <peter.sylvester@edelweb.fr> Mon, 18 July 2011 10:03 UTC

Return-Path: <peter.sylvester@edelweb.fr>
X-Original-To: ltans@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ltans@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA00221F8B8C for <ltans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 03:03:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.978
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.620, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SARE_LWSHORTT=1.24]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yfAvIGpneeeS for <ltans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 03:03:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.on-x.com (mx1.on-x.com [92.103.215.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0C1621F8BA1 for <ltans@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 03:03:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from varuna.puteaux.on-x (varuna.puteaux.on-x [192.168.10.6]) by mx1.on-x.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F6FD7FE1 for <ltans@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 12:03:10 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from smtps.on-x.com (mintaka.puteaux.on-x [192.168.14.11]) by varuna.puteaux.on-x (Postfix) with ESMTP id E11C71702E for <ltans@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 12:03:07 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [192.168.18.186] (unknown [192.168.18.186]) by smtps.on-x.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8EA3782B for <ltans@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 12:03:07 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <4E24055E.5040505@edelweb.fr>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 12:05:18 +0200
From: Peter Sylvester <peter.sylvester@edelweb.fr>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110516 Thunderbird/3.1.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ltans@ietf.org
References: <CAMm+Lwhhv=0qPoeYAZj+RH05XxJVzGHdFZwo56dH9p_vwhVkrA@mail.gmail.com> <4E2345E5.8050606@gondrom.org>
In-Reply-To: <4E2345E5.8050606@gondrom.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------080109070502070409020807"
Subject: Re: [ltans] Harber and Stornetta expiry
X-BeenThere: ltans@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: LTANS Working Group <ltans.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ltans>, <mailto:ltans-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltans>
List-Post: <mailto:ltans@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ltans-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltans>, <mailto:ltans-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 10:03:17 -0000

The purpose of hash linking schemes is to link time stamps together and
to be able to verify them without the need of any cryptographic key
which have the tendency to have their secrecy evaporate.


On 07/17/2011 10:28 PM, Tobias Gondrom wrote:
> (Yes, ltans is close to completion. The last bit we wait for is formal 
> publication of RFC 6283, which should happen Monday or Tuesday.)
>
> I read about the scheme you describe below.
> Although I can see certain value in the linked hash chain, personally 
> I am not sure the additional value is significant enough compared to 
> let's say using multiple redundant TS (which does not require any 
> coordination between TSAs).
>
> From most of the current business scenarios I've seen the past months 
> and years, I would probably not expect a big push for the approach 
> (which of course is only my personal data set and does not exclude 
> there could be some business need out there).
>
> Best regards, Tobias
>
>
>
>
> On 14/07/11 20:35, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>> I understand that LTANS is winding down, are any people interested in 
>> discussing opportunities in the wake of the above expiry?
>>
>> As I see it the advantage to the linked digest option is that it can 
>> be used to prevent default by TSAs and to provide robustness in the 
>> case that a TSA should fail. That is of course inevitable when 
>> looking at keeping records for centuries.
>>
>>
>> In particular I think there is an opportunity here for a scheme where 
>> documents were fixed with relation to two timelines. The document 
>> itself would be fixed relative to a short term timeline maintained by 
>> a chosen TSA. the TSA timeline would then be periodically (e.g. every 
>> hour) be fixed relative to a meta timeline kept across multiple TSAs.
>>
>> Forging the long term archive would require a massive multi-party 
>> default. If we can make the number of parties number in the millions 
>> default becomes inconceivable.
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Website: http://hallambaker.com/
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ltans mailing list
>> ltans@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltans
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ltans mailing list
> ltans@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltans